Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
Google, Yahoo, and other similar sites have no intent. They are not trying to sell porn, and they are not intentionally pandering to pedos. I don't know what Slick's intention was (except possibly MORE TRAFFIC!), but his operation certainly differed from Yahoo or Google.
|
Intent (or lack of it) is a redundant argument. Google's intent (as is Slicks) is to make money by giving the customer what they are looking for. One party is seemingly exempt from any liability or censure and the other is not, something which strikes me as a bit one sided.
If Google can claim 'innocence' by the nature of their operation then why not a webmaster who puts his whole operation on automatic?
Equally I do not see how else Google or other SE's can operate as making them responsible for the content they link too would make the system unworkable. Or is it simply that one party does not make a living exclusively out of porn (good) whereas the other does (bad). This despite the fact that the porn income or traffic generated by the former far exceeds the small porn webmaster sitting in his study. As I said its a funny old world.
And then there is the thread on here earlier inviting us all to drool over a 18 y/o hottie (and yeah she could pass for 16 or younger) and its all 'yeah I'd hit it' etc etc although before they 'hit it' they'll make a stop in here to give Slick a spot of grief...as I said funny old world